Talk:2/Archive 1

Messier object M2, a magnitude 6.5 globular cluster in the constellation Aquarius.

The New General Catalogue object NGC 2, a magnitude 14.2 spiral galaxy in the constellation Pegasus

The Saros number of the solar eclipse series which began on May 4 2861 BC and ended on June 21 1563 BC . The duration of Saros series 2 was 1298.1 years, and it contained 73 solar eclipses.

The Saros number of the lunar eclipse series which began on February 21 2541 BC and ended on April 22 1225 BC. The duration of Saros series 2 was 1316.2 years, and it contained 74 lunar eclipses.

These are all arbitrary number assignments. Nothing fundamental, like magic numbers and the like. -- Zanaq 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that many pages on numbers, not only 2, have such astronomical data, and that the matter has already been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers (see for instance Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_1#Astronomical numbers). Note also that arbitrariness is not in itself a reason to exclude this information -- a lot of the stuff in sports, technology, etc. is just as arbitrary. So I've put the astronomical stuff back for consistency with the rest of the numbers, but you're welcome to bring this up at WikiProject Numbers. 4pq1injbok 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I brought it up. -- Zanaq 11:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

isn't the origin of the arabic numbers related to the quantity of acute/right angles they have? 1 being the two sticks (without the bottom one), two was like a Z, 3 like an inverted E, and so on...? so this section of the article would seem a little bit dubious. Does this happen in other number articles? please revise. 159.90.161.23 19:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but very wrong. I'm counting four right (90 degree) angles in the inverted E.

Take a look at the Unicode code chart for Arabic. While you're at it, look for the book From one to zero: a universal history of numbers by Georges Ifrah, translated by Lowell Bair, New York : Viking, 1985. Anton Mravcek 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think 1 + 1 should have an independent account, given that 1 + 1 is a fundamental component of mathematics, logic, language and popular culture, with connotations that go far beyond the simple fact that it '= 2'. To automatically redirect to 2 is somewhat of an oversight. Thefuguestate 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should exist as an article. However, it shouldn't exist as a redirect to this article as Wikipedia is not a calculator. Astroguy2 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True; and that's why I fixed the redirect from the square root of 4 to here, too. Dicklyon 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this in the Talk:Square root of 4 since the latter has been nominated for deletion. I think there is some interesting material in the latter page (Computer Science stuff, about the error which, if from real reliable sources, might merit mentioning) that can be added here. Furthermore, the additional material will enrich this page. Finally, mathematical views can also be discussed. Brusegadi 06:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that many edits have been made by a user to prove a point. I suggest neglecting that part of the page. Brusegadi 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "computer science" bit was actually a bit of a joke, since the point of the article is unrelated to the particular value that he used as his title example. Just shows that not everything that mentions a number is a reliable source. Dicklyon 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing that computers 'do not think so' made a little sense to me. I thought it would be one of those articles with strange titles. I thought you had access to the link so I took it seriously; I did not go over it because I thought it would be a waste of time; I wanted to wait and see what others had to say. To be honest the whole 2.00000... irritated me (I am a bit tired and using this to procrastinate on long ago due work). It was a good wiki day thought. I never knew that so much stuff could be done to prove a point.  ;) Brusegadi 08:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article you mention was real and serious, but not really relevant to the square root of 4 (it's been a long time since there were computers that would get square roots of square integers wrong). If you want to look for any bits worth salvaging, or just want to enjoy the parody on the square root of 5, find it at User:dicklyon/Square_root_of_4. Dicklyon 15:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "2 (two) is a number, numeral, and glyph. It is the natural number following 1 and preceding 3.[citation needed]" I just want to say how glad I am to see the citation needed thingy at the end of this sentence. I just don't feel comfortable believing this information until I know it comes from a credible source. I mean, anyone could have posted this, and I don't know if they have a degree in math, are merely numbers enthusiasts, or are 5 years old. Thanks wikipediers. --Banyan 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it gives me a good idea about other articles where more citations may be needed... Dicklyon 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm in teh wrong hands is just plain stupid.^{[citation needed]} Numerao (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the difference between the symbols 2 and ２? I understand that the last one is a "full-width 2" used in Japanese, according to Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EF%BC%92). Can anyone say why they use that instead of the regular 2 symbol? 77.57.214.157 (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (lKj)

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well of course it is; the definition of even is integral divisibility by 2. Every integer (prime or not) is integrally divisible by itself, it goes without saying. Saying that 2 is the only even prime is really more a attribute of human language, specifically that we have a word that means integrally divisible by 2. Although we don't have a word that means integrally divisible by 3, 3 is the only prime that is thricive, 5 is the only prime that is pentic, 7 is the only prime that is septic, yada yada yada. If humans had never existed 2 would still be prime and divisible by itself just as much as 3 would, but also they would equally not have a word describing those attributes.

So what? So this should be noted. Refer to Three where Wikipedia says that 3 is the only prime that is 1 less than a perfect square, an explanation follows that describes how (n-1)=1 and (n+1)=3 for n²-1. I think an analogous explanation of 2 being the only even prime is warranted since this is similarly not so magically so as people may be inclined to think upon learning this datum. (and its literally infinitely more work editing all the other prime pages to say that the other primes are the only prime divisible by themselves.) Grabba (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the following text:

Two has a connection to triangular numbers:

${\displaystyle \prod _{k=0}^{n}2^{k}=2^{tri_{2}(n)}}$

where ${\displaystyle tri_{d}(n)={\frac {1}{d!}}\prod _{k=0}^{d-1}(n+k)\quad {\mbox{if}}\quad d\geq 2}$ gives the nth d-dimensional simplex number. When d=2,

${\displaystyle tri_{2}(n)={\frac {n^{2}+n}{2}}.}$

because it's not unique for 2. Actually any number Q has the property ${\displaystyle \prod _{k=0}^{n}Q^{k}=Q^{tri_{2}(n)}}$, because it is a product of common bases. A lot of the other examples are so silly it's hard to actually take this seriously. It seems like most of the mathematics formulas examples are trying to say "2 is the only solution to this equation, and this is a significant equation, and it is significant that 2 is the only solution". I don't think many of them meet that requirement. Antares5245 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The number two is spelled out everywhere in life: Man/Woman, Day/Night, -infinity/+infinity, binary stars, good/evil, hot/cold, birth/death, etc... I was also reading into some Quantum physics articles, and I read something somewhere talking about "either/or" in relation to some theory, and I couldn't help but think about this duality property. Anybody else feel this way? Ulterion (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Brace (sports) redirects here. Please correct or put in some indication as to why. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC) -- brace, "a pair; two, esp of game birds: a brace of partridges".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.154.28 (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to see a new subtitle on the top that says:

II and Two redirect here. For other uses, see II (disambiguation) and Two (disambiguation)

Leave some notes here. Lamp301 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Two also has the unique property that 2+2 = 2·2 = 2²=2↑↑2=2↑↑↑2, and so on, no matter how high the operation is." Is this really so? My understanding is that 2↑↑↑2 = 2↑↑2↑↑2 = 2↑↑(2²) = 2↑↑4 = 65536. Did I miss something? Marco ^✉ 18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. At the step 2↑↑↑2 = 2↑↑2↑↑2, I think you missed this: According to the Knuth's up-arrow notation article,

${\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}a\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow b=&\underbrace {a_{}\uparrow \uparrow (a\uparrow \uparrow (\dots \uparrow \uparrow a))} \\&b{\mbox{ copies of }}a\end{matrix}}}$

therefore 2↑↑↑2 = 2↑↑2 (2 copies of 2), not 2↑↑2↑↑2 (3 copies of 2). Art LaPella (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like the article on "two" to describe the origin, history and etymology of its spelling and pronunciation, which isn't in the article. (The article on "forty" somewhat describes why it is spelled as "forty" instead of "fourty", so I think "two" should, too -- no pun intended.)

Why is the "w" in "two" silent? Where does the written word "two" come from? I believe "two", "twin", "twice", and "twain" have the same root word. (Is "twilight" related?)

I think the article on "Mark Twain" should have a link to the disambiguation page for "twain" and "two", like the "TWAIN" article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWAIN does.

I agree. I came here looking for information about the word, and I don't find it here are in 2 (disambiguation). --Tysto (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2 is the only real number such that

${\displaystyle a={\sqrt {a+{\sqrt {a+{\sqrt {a+{\sqrt {\ldots }}}}}}}}}$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.109.249 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

True. Notable? Anyway, that's not the way you wrote it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you like this one better.

${\displaystyle 2={\sqrt {2+{\sqrt {2+{\sqrt {2+{\sqrt {\ldots }}}}}}}}}$

if this is not notable then the statement about the geometric sum isnt either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.109.249 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect to redirect "Couple" to "Two". I was looking for the husband-wife usage here and didn't find it. Also "Two" is the wrong page to add the info. I guess Couple is more than a dictionary meaning, so it can have a page of its own. Jay 23:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks User:Icairns for removing the redirect and creating a disambiguation page. Jay 14:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That did not really embetter the situation, though. I was looking for (gramatical) information about couple in the meaning of a relationship-group of (two) persons, and that it now disambiguates here-to is no better than redirecting here. I would change the dab page for couple, if only I knew where to it should point. The situation at pair is just the same, so pointing there makes no sense. Maybe someone else has an idea … Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In the "In mathematics" section, it is noted that 2 is the only number b for which ${\displaystyle \sum _{k=0}^{n-1}b^{k}=b^{n}-1}$ is true for every positive integer n. However, that's not really anything special about the number 2. ${\displaystyle \sum _{k=0}^{n-1}b^{k}\times (b-1)=b^{n}-1}$ is true for all combinations of positive integers b and n, so it's clear that this "unique" property of 2 is a result of the fact that 2 - 1 = 1.

(How) Should the article be changed to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthoplex64 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the statement that "$2 bill "never gained widespread acceptance." It's nonsense. Such bills were in common circulation in the 1950s and 1960s, and cashiers customarily devoted a compartment of their cash register to them. They were less common than the $1, $5, and $10 bills, but by no means rare. And if memory serves, they were commoner at the time than, say, the silver dollar or the even the fifty-cent-piece, and far, far, far commoner than, say, either the Susan B. Anthony or gold-toned Sacagawea coins ever were. There was said to be a superstition that $2 bills were bad luck, but it was not a common superstition and neither I nor anyone I encountered had such a superstition. Dpbsmith 02:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) P. S. It is, of course, very rare today since it was a form of U. S. currency known as the "United States Note" (red Treasury seal) which was vanishing even then and was discontinued circa 1966.

I have heard that at one time it was policy for the military to pay using $2 bills, which then would show up in local cash registers as an indication of the importance of the military to the local economy. If this was true at one time, it certainly was no longer true by the 79s, when I did my hitch. But my experience was that $2 were not in common circulation during the 50s or 60s; I had to go to a bank and specifically request one in order to be able to add one to my collection. Wschart (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article, regardless, even though all the comments seem to be in error. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the recent addition of the redirection of SS0 to 2_(number). ("SS0" redirects here.) What is "SS0" and why is it redirecting here? Dhrm77 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is the representation of the number 2 in Peano arithmetic, as it is the successor of the successor of 0: but S(S(0)) would be more proper. A bit silly if you ask me. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2/CommentsTalk:2/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 09:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Wbm1058 just moved 1 (number) to 1. Anything to wait for before pages from 2 to 100 get moved as well?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I just moved the talk page because an editor had put a {{db-move}} tag on the article, and another admin moved the article without moving the talk page as well. This was an easier one because the dab is at One (disambiguation). For the rest there's more work because the dab needs moved out of the way first. The focus has been on the years, there's still a lot of work to do there. wbm1058 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone ready to move this page to 2 yet?? If not, please explain what we have to wait for. Georgia guy (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The section of this talk page just above this one says that work is needed on the dis-ambiguation pages. Any thoughts on how much work it takes?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Georgia guy, please join in the discussion at Talk:AD 1#Number articles or dab pages? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stay the page at 2 (number). Wisnu Aji (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion now at Talk:2 (disambiguation). 2 (number) moved to 2. wbm1058 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There is something to be said for adding a square root table. There seems no justification for adding addition and subtraction tables, but the square root table seems plausible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather off-topic imo. What is there to be said for it? — JFG ^talk 05:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

${\displaystyle x^{\frac {1}{2}}}$ — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How about a table listing the values of 2% for various arguments, talking about values of the trig functions for argument 2 (perhaps diversifying for radian, degree, grad, and what not), analyzing

${\displaystyle f(x)=2\int _{2}^{2x}2t^{2}\cdot dt,\;\dots }$ ? (I recently fell for question marks)

Honestly, I even oppose to such a table within the Square root article. Purgy (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Maybe at One half then… and even doubtful there. — JFG ^talk 08:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There is something to be said for adding a square root table, but not in this article. No one seeing ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {x}}}$ or even ${\displaystyle x^{\frac {1}{2}}}$ for the first time and wondering what it means would look it up under 2. Certes (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, let's drop it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In gridiron football, a team can score 2 points by getting a safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ➋. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect II. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 54nd60x (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I found a free source that also explains the origin of the word “two”. I think it can replace the paid source. Should we replace? The free source: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/two?q=two 2402:800:63ED:E35E:8863:59FA:4030:EC79 (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I was redirected to this page from the search term 'too'. Shouldn't this redirect be revised, considering the meaning of 'too' is completely different to 'two'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.51.103 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to search for “too” And I don’t get redirected here. I think it was revised. 171.246.6.21 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Too#See also lists Two (disambiguation), which seems to be about the right level of linkage. I've signed the original question to clarify that it is old. Certes (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect -2 (number) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#-2 (number) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ꤂ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#꤂ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the statement about "2 being the only prime number that is even" should be removed. It is true, but only in a trivial and non "wikipedy" sense.

We could also say that 3 is the only prime number divisible by 3, or that 5 is the only prime number divisible by 5.

Every prime number p is the only prime number divisible by p - and this fact is not (of course) stated in any of their pages.

"14 is the largest natural number below 15", "100 is the smallest 3-digit natural number", etc., are also true but have no "wikipedy" value, and therefore are not written.

(I suspect that because we have a special word, "even", instead of "divisible by 2" - is what gave birth to "2 is the only even prime" and what makes it sound non-trivial for a second. Roypit (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been identified as a notable property of 2 for a long time, more or less in the vein that 0 is even. These are not necessarily trivial, but rather more in line with exceptional. This is because the even "nature" of 2 blends with its prime properties; as such, it is useful both when dealing with special prime numbers such as Mersenne primes and Fermat primes, while being distinctively relevant inside abundant numbers and deficient numbers, for example. I hope this helps. B, Radlrb (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

At 3 (telecommunications), there is a fancy picture of a 3. At Channel 4, there is a fancy picture of a 4. Do any Wikipedia articles mention a fancy picture of a 2?? Georgia guy 23:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like the other numbers, 2 has a Greek numerical prefix and a Latin numerical prefix. Unlike the other numbers, however, there is also a prefix for 2, twi-, that is neither Greek nor Latin. What language is it?? Georgia guy 23:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it's a prefix - I would guess that "twice" and "twin" are just derived from "two", which itself comes from "duo". It's not like sticking "twi-" on the front of any other word would make sense. sjorford 15:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My dictionary (Webster's NewWorld, college edition) says "twi-" is a prefix from Middle English via Old English. There are plenty of other twi- words; see my additions to twi-. dbenbenn | talk 16:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected...but twitch? twig? Do those really derive from "twi-" meaning "two"? Bizarre if so. sjorford 16:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good questions, now answered at twi-. dbenbenn | talk 20:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And damn good answers, if I do say so my damn self. sjorford 21:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can see a typo 'combare' instead of 'compare'. Please fix it. 46.242.13.140 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just removed the paranthetical comment. It is not adding anything to the explanation, which already compares with "who". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The bit I removed... Guy and Conway wrote: "Two is celebrated as the only even prime, which in some sense makes it the oddest prime of all." This is a joke, because of the incongruousness of applying the ordinary meaning of "odd" to an even number. This does not mean that the number 2 is ever actually referred to using the expression "the oddest prime". Of course JHC and RKG are as impeccable a source as you could have for a maths article, but I do not think this adds anything in an elementary exposition of the properties of 2. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Humor can aid the learning process. People are capable of differentiating terms, especially when described appropriately. Memory improves drastically when information is diversified properly, without lending to confusion, and when the information is tied to things not directly related to what is being presented at hand that others might find meaningful. I would prefer to re-include this in a note, since it is a historically valuable quotation from a reliable source, however I see your point and it is valid, though I believe it can still be incorporated in a more indirect way. Radlrb (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is supposed to give an overview of a topic to the general reader (at least as far as this is possible within the constraints of necessary technical background). It is not supposed to include everything anyone can find in a Wreliable source that might have some connection with the topic. As I said at 5 I do not think that the huge amounts of sometimes extremely technical content that you have been adding to these articles is an improvement. Absolutely nothing personal, but I will start an RFC somewhere to see if everyone disagrees with me. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Please move forward with it. This quote relates entirely, which is why it has lasted so long, relevant to your point. I'd like to point out that you are not being constructive in seeking amendments, and are firing away immediately toward an Rfc. Inclusive, of me writing in your talk page a while back, yet you chose to not give a response, whatever it may mean . Radlrb (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Writing as a great admirer of the late Professor Conway, I must sadly agree that his comment is unsuited to this page. It might be used in his own article as an example of his humour, but it's not helpful in explaining the properties of the number 2. Certes (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Its actually useful in amplifying the property of it being the singular even prime number, if one can get accustomed to the idea of being presented both a true statement and a humorous juxtaposition at once, and generate a stronger first impression. That's deeper philosophy of psychology of learning, here being a great example of this; of course it can backfire, but I rather tend on the end of generating an article suitable for all audiences on an elementary property, that might bring to light some joy, even if it is a challenge to bring together if not ready. Again, a note is actually harmless, and it being a note too would let the reader understand the nuance; esp. when including explicitly a statement about the infinitude of odd numbers. Radlrb (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"2" is the notable number of the second pool ball. Its color is blue.

191.255.194.29 (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see related discussion at Talk:15 (number)#The pool ball 15. Certes (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For any n from 1 to 15(?), the nth pool ball is marked n. The colour is not notable, and any generic n statement is not notable. Therefore these should not go in. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I am asking myself: would the typical reader look for this information in 2, or in Pool (cue sports)#Equipment? However, without a good source, I'm not sure it belongs even in the latter. Certes (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It belongs in the latter, with a source. Polyamorph (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2 is the second number in the number line 74.142.90.6 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There are numerous number lines. It is not the second number in the real number line, the integer number line, or even the natural number line if you include zero (which is often the case). This would also be self-referential and so not helpful to a reader. Tollens (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

and 3 is not 120.21.89.235 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia articles, such as those for political leaders, are routinely permanently protected because they would otherwise be frequent targets for vandalism. Others are protected temporarily when the level of vandalism becomes too high. That's the case here. It's perhaps time to lift the protection here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed this again... I did at last realise that the description includes the word "two", as in "there are two circles", but this would be an absurd justification for adding this otherwise irrelevant diagram. Please explain in more detail why you think this belongs, and get some consensus, involving people other than yourself before attempting to restore it. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Radlrb: In this section you added the following paragraph - I have removed the reference clutter, and included the "efn" bits in the text, to attempt to make it readable. The problem is that despite being a native speaker of English and holder of a maths degree I can make no sense of it at all...

In decimal representation, after the first two, three, four and five digits in the approximation of ${\displaystyle \pi (\approx 3.14159)}$ the number 2 is the only digit greater than zero not yet represented (overall, up to the largest appearing digit). [Where also, operations of strings ${\displaystyle 1\times 2^{2}=4}$ and ${\displaystyle 5-3=2}$ are collectively satisfied.]

Is the "efn" supposed to be a qualifying clause on the end of the preceding sentence? I understand "after the first n digits", for some n, but your sentence baffles me. Can you explain? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The note is not a qualifying clause for the sentence. Just, 5 - 3 = 2 and one times the square of two as four (or conversely) in between, as an addendum (both operations on strings can only be true when inputting 2). There could be a simpler way to write this. Radlrb (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. First an English problem: "where" is a relative pronoun, so it cannot normally start a sentence, particularly followed by a comma. Perhaps it could be "Here, ..." -- but I still have no idea of the relevance of the trivial numerical identities. I really do not understand at all what you are trying to say. Is one example of the facts implied by the sentence that "after after the first three digits of ${\displaystyle \pi }$ there are representations of the digits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9"? Is that right? What does "representation" mean? (I looked at the various linked topics, and wondered if the relevant one was "strings" in computer science, which I am familiar with, but I have no idea how that could be relevant.) Imaginatorium (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Followup: @Dhrm77: just made an edit summary: "This is not true. 6,7, and 8 are all also numbers greater then 0 that aren't represented in the first 6 digits." I assumed that anyone would see that, and that somehow there was some other meaning conveyed by "represent" other than simply "these digits appear in the decimal representation." Hoping for some clarification eventually. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed the part that I meant to remove in the first place, until it can be clarified, if needed. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the point was, if you read carefully, up the the highest digit represented, or appearing from that base. I.e., and I guess it is not obvious: first in up to the first two digits, in 3.1 only 2 is not yet represented in the set covering set of what would be {1,2,3}; in 3.14 2 is not represented in (1,2,3,4), and at both 3.141 also 2 is not represented in {1,2,3,4}, as with at 3.1415; the only digit in {1,2,3,4,5} not yet represented is 2. Then, comes 9, in 3.14159... (which is the sum of the second prime and composite), which is where you two are referring to, and what I was not referring to, which is why I added the specific wording alluding to this (up to the "LARGEST"-yet appearing digit). Radlrb (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Then after these comes 2, at the seventh position. Radlrb (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, we are comparing the digits of pi to the list of integers at each step. This is a very arbitrary thing to do, and what is the point? Is there a purpose to it? Will the reader actually learn something useful from that? Dhrm77 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that in base ten (i.e. with digits 0;1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), the number 2 is the only digit missing up to these points. Then followed by 2,6,7,8 which add to 23 (the ninth prime, at this location, ALSO the sum of the digits "3.1415"!!; come on). Then followed by two. It's cool, more than just cool...incredibly interesting and telling if you have the sensitivity to understand how immensely useful and absolute most unlikely to be trivial, if you don't think its meaningful then you don't think so, but if you have any hope for something in mathematics that makes sense, instead of fronting the same arguments over and over, over "trivialities" that I am adding (meaning you are not really clicking with what is going on here), then you will noot want it removed. I don't, we can vote on it. Then let it to history to see if these sort of things were worthwhile, when our world is dying and we need so many things to save us from absolute asynchronous boredom and shitdom. Radlrb (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

PI is interesting, no matter what base it is expressed in. When you look at PI in a specific base, play with its digits, and try to find meaning in that, it borders on numerology. I would also point out that it is unsourced, and can be considered original research. See Wikipedia:OR. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the first mathematicians were numerologists by modern standards, in deep thought and in practice. That's how you have modern mathematics (see most brilliant mathematicians reference God at some point as the highest ideal, or the Self; and how it is pure mathematics). People trying to find symmetry when er'yone else said "no". Today is just a more technical re-manifestation of the same prejudice that mathematics "cannot have true and complete meaning" in all manifestations of existence (i.e., lower the power of mathematics onto the real world, because it seems too "chaotic", or in other words, too complicated for simple minds to see the enormous and extensive symmetry that does NOT necessarily easily appear in minute scales of approximation, large or small). That will pass like it has each and every time there is a full and complete revolution in knowledge, which we are currently going through (for the first time in many Millennia). Radlrb (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

And yes, people don't play around enough, that's exactly what the problem is here, everything is still so stagnant (and stoic) in society, that it has putrefied the keys to understanding how to dig into truth *(and suffer through it openly as it undoes misunderstandings, unafraid Radlrb (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC))* , which requires exploring paths of novelty. Like a l w a y s. Never has doing nothing new led to new information, except in the emanation of nothingness itself that generates All. Radlrb (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Recreational mathematics can be fun and stimulate interest in the subject, but Wikipedia isn't the place to play. This looks like original research to me. Even if it were supported by a reliable source, I don't see how it would enhance even a relevant section like Pi#Approximate value and digits, let alone an article about the number 2. Certes (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I can’t help you on any of that Certes, to me Wikipedia is an extremely fun place, but that’s because I enjoy knowledge and find life like a game of love. I guess when you take away the element of joy in Wikipedia, you can’t see how it stimulates the game of learning. But that’s because in the West we don’t understand what gaming really even is, since it’s rooted in notions of “winning” and “losing”. I’ll take it out then, glad it was shown here, as it is a key to understanding pi, and connections with the circle as being defined with two points (for a circular diameter and as a digon), very naturally (so pi better have something to do with 2 very directly at the fundamental numeric level - here one a base-ten rep. with 9 as a largest digit - and, with the unit, aside from being a direct expression of pure space and zero; this is an extremely useful elementary connection). Radlrb (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Any property that only works in base 10 raises a small red flag for me, because there's nothing mathematically special about the number of fingers our species typically has. Pi has one 2 in its first ten decimal places, and one 2 in the next ten: exactly the expected number, which is unremarkable. Certes (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

How is that the expected number? If anything, the fact that it hits 23 at the first six digits with an end in 9, links the prime index with the base itself (where 9 IS THE SUM of the second prime and composite, where nine is the largest numeral represented in base ten). That is remarkable. I’m going to check and see in which of the first 100 bases this happens in. Again, linking digits, with prime indices, in two different ways (sum of digits at the sixth decimal place, and sum of digits absent, coincide). Actually, there are three notions being tied at once: digit sum, appearing digits, and absence of digits. Not trivial, no matter how one looks at it. In fact, at that point, you’d have to define triviality and a measure of triviality, before throwing that word around without care (meaning, preventing a revelation of something deeper, simply because of being used to ignore the possibility). Again, opening doors rather than closing them. The first 0 in pi occurs at the 33rd decimal place, and the next two at the 165th and 168th place, indices that add to 333 and have a difference of 3. Unremarkable, huh, when the first digit is also 3? Seems like nothing will ever be enough (0 then violates your “expectation” in this example for pi, yet likely still not worth your interest). Radlrb (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean "expected" in the sense that the expected value of the number of 2s in ten random digits is 1, so finding precisely one 2 in a ten-digit sequence is no surprise. Of course, the digits of pi are not random, but they follow no obvious pattern and pass most statistical tests of randomness. Certes (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You cannot claim an “expected value” on the decimal expansion of a transcendental number, since a formula for it will naturally yield a value whose strings of digits have a variation that is not ordered in any way (since it is not a quotient of rational numbers, and more deeply, not the root of a non-zero polynomial of finite degree with rational coefficients). However, patterns inside could come in other forms, such as partial sums of strings, and other arithmetic properties deeper inside. That’s yet to be really studied, however. We can’t claim anything on it. Your last sentence was not logical, it is self-contradicting. (Not random, but yet random?) Radlrb (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are showing you are out of your depth here. The probability of finding the entire text of the King James translation of the Old Testament in pairwise decimal digits read as decimal ASCII in the digits of pi is surely 1. Anyway, that's enough really. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah? Surely you don’t expect the 33rd location string of pi to be the first zero string right? Yet it is. What nonsense are you uttering right now? (Yes, the probability of finding the entire spatial metrics - in whichever measure - of the multiverse inside digits of pi will also bevery likely be 1, if those metrics are coordinates fixed on a two-dimensional complex plane; but why bring this up?) Because I said nothing on the probability of finding two twos in the first 20 digits of pi, as Certes pointed. No, while you can “mathematize” a “probability”, that will only give you a mean average of what to expect, which is different than what you will actually see in given ranges; moreover, look at the placement of zeroes or any other digit and your “probability” function will actually tell you nothing of whether that does pan out in a given range, and with what population of other digits. In some ranges it will be much closer, and some far out. Of course, when mathematicians today are so inclined to rely on probability rather than true mathematical behavior, you will confuse the two, or even worse, forget about looking for the latter. Radlrb (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me add here one thing: pi is not yet proven a normal number... expected (pun intended), but not proven; this is also not a singular value, but a range of 10 numbers, so by expected value I meant something far stronger than just a mere "average of averages". Radlrb (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) And, even then, the idea that all possible strings of numbers exist within pi (or that any digit appears an infinite amount of times) is still not proven to be absolutely true. Radlrb (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever added new material to number articles? Or did you just join the Numbers Project so that you can frustrate the hard work that others make, where you can’t seem capable of adding material yourself. Radlrb (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing extraneous material from Wikipedia is a valuable editorial function that keeps the site accessible and easy to navigate. It should not be stigmatized. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and can choose whatever tasks they do and do not want to work on. Whether or not any given piece of content is extraneous or not can be a matter for legitimate differences of opinion. -- Beland (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

But yes, enough, actions speak louder than words. Radlrb (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)